Author
Topic: Zoom vs Primes? (Read 12941 times)

Sometimes lighting is a big factor for some gyms that I know of. For instance, tonight I'm not even bothering bringing my 70-200 because the gym is so dimly lit that I need to be able to shoot at f/2. So in that case, I just bring my 135L and/or 200L and hop around the stands .

I live in Santa Cruz... I will be out shooting with a few friends sunday afternoon testing my a 1DX and 300 f/2.8. I shoot street and studio. I have loads of L and if you'd like, we could meet up and you could test drive some glass. Hit me up if you're interested.

Get a zoom way more versatile than a prime unless you know exactly what fl you like. No reason to spend a bunch of scratch on a 24-70ii. The older version of that lens or the 24-105, or new tamron 24-70 will fit the bill then buy a 85 1.8 and your still saving a boat load over the 24-70ii

canon rumors FORUM

I am bit torn on this subject. I have a mix of primes and zooms. I prefer shooting with the primes when I have an opportunity to be a little more deliberate. I feel they really lend themselves to more creative options. I do most of my portraiture work with primes.

But events are another matter. I just shot a wedding this weekend using the new Tamron 24-70mm VC over the focal range where I would normally use a 35mm and 85mm prime. I found it a much better tool for adjusting on the spot and enable me to better frame key moments without worrying about not having enough room in my framing. I shot it about 65-70% of the day, complimenting it with a 135L, 100L Macro, and 85mm f/1.8 for key shots where I could be more deliberate. I was really pleased with my results, and, from what I understand, the MKII of the Canon 24-70mm is even better (although that VC is very, very nice!)

The same is true to a much lesser extent of a longer lens (like a 70-200). I find longer shots easier, because you can always crop a quality image to get closer, but you can't add width to a shot in post. I love both my 100L and 135L for event work for different reason. I also add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 135L to make a 189mm f/2.8L (which is about as long in actuality as the 70-200mm zooms) on occasion.

I love having both options, but I think choosing one depends very strongly on one's shooting style.

I am bit torn on this subject. I have a mix of primes and zooms. I prefer shooting with the primes when I have an opportunity to be a little more deliberate. I feel they really lend themselves to more creative options. I do most of my portraiture work with primes.

But events are another matter. I just shot a wedding this weekend using the new Tamron 24-70mm VC over the focal range where I would normally use a 35mm and 85mm prime. I found it a much better tool for adjusting on the spot and enable me to better frame key moments without worrying about not having enough room in my framing. I shot it about 65-70% of the day, complimenting it with a 135L, 100L Macro, and 85mm f/1.8 for key shots where I could be more deliberate. I was really pleased with my results, and, from what I understand, the MKII of the Canon 24-70mm is even better (although that VC is very, very nice!)

The same is true to a much lesser extent of a longer lens (like a 70-200). I find longer shots easier, because you can always crop a quality image to get closer, but you can't add width to a shot in post. I love both my 100L and 135L for event work for different reason. I also add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 135L to make a 189mm f/2.8L (which is about as long in actuality as the 70-200mm zooms) on occasion.

I love having both options, but I think choosing one depends very strongly on one's shooting style.

+1000 on that. I shoot weddings and events for a living. I use primes for all portraiture and sometimes my 70-200. I've been using the 300 f/2.8 lately and love it.

For event work though... I'm constantly using the 24-70 and the 70-200 on 2x 5D3's. I'll tuck the 50L and a 135L or 100L (depending on the shoot) into my field harness to cover any situ's when the zooms struggle.

I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?

Always good to have options, neither zooms or primes are better than the other these days (for the most part). They are all just tools that fit certain jobs better than others. Knowing what you need is the first step... rent, borrow or come out and play with me, then you might be able to make a better decision with your hard earned money. If you purchased a 5D2 then I'll assume you already have some ideas about what you need. Don't go out and buy a cheap zoom just to figure out what you need, it's a complete waste of money unless you think you need a cheap zoom too. I would suggest buying the best zoom you could afford first if your plan is to have a good AP zoom and primes. If that is the case... I'd go with the 24-70 (vI or vII). If money were no object though, and a zoom was a first choice... I would not hesitate to go 70-200 vII either. It is quite possibly one of the finest zooms available. I plan on being buried with mine

BTW... the offer still stands, Sunday I should be out at Steamer Lane round 2pm and afterwards heading to Pacific Ave for some street work.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 07:38:54 PM by ChilledXpress »

Logged

duffymcpatzer

I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?

Back to the OP for sec. I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The OP doesn't even have a lens and he's thinking 24-70 Mark 2 already. I'd say whoa nelly take a step back for a second. Buy a cheap zoom lens with a lot of focal distance 24-105 or even better EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. WHY you say? because my friend you just don't know what focal distance YOU'LL like. Everybody is particular here. I've shoot street and I HATE HATE shooting 35MM -- just not my bag. Too close to the subject or something. I shoot up around 85-135 -- I like the length. I like my 100mm Macro II a ton, great bokeh, yada yada whatever, but YOU the OP don't know what you want yet. Primes are great; Zooms are great-- I'm pretty sure we all have both in the bag. Go use the Zoom enjoy the flexibility and find out how and at what focal distance you like to shoot THEN start talking prime lenses and get the peanut gallery to chirp in on what they think is good.

Waw, new 24-70 is a lot of money. I have mix of L zooms and primes. All zooms I have are f4, light, compact for traveling round the world.Primes I use for more serious work (well I´m big amateur, but when I like to express myself i try to use best available).

Once you do not have any lens I would recommend you buy a zoom first, 24-70/2.8 I, 24-70/4 IS or 24-105/4 supplied with 100/2.8 macro L (can be uses for portraits as well) or 85/1.8 or 200/2.8 L II if you require to have a telephoto in your bag.

Just a thought, fir the high price of the 24-70 ii, you could buy a zoom and a prime. And a decent one too.

Thought I'd mention that my zeiss 2/35 makes my only current zoom 10-22 (I'm shooting a 7d) look like a kit lens. Not saying everyone should choose a completely manual focus lens, but wise shopping at the price of what I mentioned could buy you one of those AND quite possibly a 24-105 f4 is. I managed to buy my zeiss at just shy of $1100 aus - a good price and its not a grey. However please go and test one at least a shop first so you know if your interested. Don't blindly buy one unless you really know its what you desire.

Logged

In the end, only the image matters... Not what equipment you used to get there.

It is a complicated question for sure. You just have to make your decision work. There will be trade-offs in time or shutter speed. It is faster to use a zoom to zoom in, but your aperture won't be able to go down to f/1.2, f/1.4, or f/1.8

But carrying around two or three lenses aren't always fun either.

I personally like the 16-35mm zoom and a 50mm or 85mm prime combination. You get the variety with the zoom and the ultra-wide photos that the 5Dm2 can do, but the prime when it counts with good bokah.

canon rumors FORUM

trygved

I say the 24-70 (either or, personally. People loved the original lens, it's funny that people no longer consider it an option now that it has been replaced) or 24-105.I would think the 24-70, though a bit shorter at its longest, will be more useful as you can use slightly higher shutter speeds.IS won't help you with moving subjects, and the street is rarely still.That, and the obvious flexibility with framing the subject quickly gives tremendous advantages.By time you step closer or farther away, you may have lost the golden prize of a shot.

Then you evaluate the advantages of a fast prime.While I <3 bokeh as much as the next photog, I feel that street photography benefits from putting the subject in context.If everything is a 1.2f - 1.8f blur of creamy goodness, what's the point of shooting on the street?What I really look for in great street photography are the details that support the subject of an image.Maybe a ratty old building, a person off to the side doing something irregular, or a cat that you notice after looking at the image for 10 seconds or so.

It's all subjective however.You may enjoy obliterating the background every now and again, so it comes down to your taste.